Hacker News Reader

Comment by nsgi | Hacker News Reader

For something like a password manager, the most compelling updates are security fixes, but there are several problems with charging for these:

- It's unreasonable to expect people to pay the full price for minor security fixes that still need to go out

- Because security upgrades are invisible to the user, it may be harder for the customer to see their value v. new features

- The timeline of when security updates need to go out is less predictable than that of feature upgrades, resulting in unpredictable revenue and expenditure for both the vendor and the customer and the customer may not have the budget to pay for an unexpected security fix

- Customers often want to take time to consider whether it is worth paying for upgrades, whereas security fixes should be applied as soon as possible

- The vendor must invest a lot of resources in testing the security of their software even when no security upgrades are warranted

View on HN

> - It's unreasonable to expect people to pay the full price for minor security fixes that still need to go out

The ideal model for locally-run software, in my opinion, is to sell perpetual licenses to each major version for a one-time cost and promise security and maintenance updates for a certain period. New features can go into new major versions that users have to pay for (sometimes with discounted upgrade pricing), or, on a discretionary basis, as free updates.

This used to be the typical business model for locally-run software. Microsoft, for example, sold Windows versions for a one-time cost, promised security and some other level of updates until a certain year (and new features could be added on a discretionary basis), and provided upgrade pricing for new major versions that added new features. This kept control in users' hands, as their paid-for software could be used forever (at least until and unless external factors, like hardware incompatibilities, prevented it from working), though of course it would be very dumb to use, say, XP today on an Internet-connected machine. I am generally against subscription models for local software where there is no legitimate reliance on an outside service, and also against the trend of trying to create such a reliance for no legitimate reason ("We've added cloud sync and that's what the subscription is for. Servers cost money every month, which is why we're charging you every month." - except I can handle my own file storage and don't want your sync service).

Ugh, this trend of 'cloud sync' is highly annoying. Let me put an encrypted file on something that resembles a filesystem. If I want cloud sync, I'll put that file on Dropbox/OneDrive/GDrive/Whatever else.

It's only become a big thing after iOS and it's lack-of-a-filesystem and lack of inter-app data flows locked users out of their own devices.

Quite often I don't want many of the "new features". For me, bug fixes and security fixes are the main thing, followed by compatibility updates. I'm quite happy to pay for the latter when it was me that caused the issue by updating my OS/hardware in the first place. I'd quite like some amount of the former to be included in the original cost.

It's become a big thing because it's convenient. Every time I sign into 1Password on any of my devices, all of my passwords are there. I don't need an account with Google, Dropbox, or Microsoft for it to work and I don't need to do any manual setup. It "just works", which is exactly what the average person wants their software to do.

Manually dealing with files is a sign of poor software design for simple use cases, in my opinion. I quite like the iOS model that abstracts the idea of a filesystem away from the user because the user never cared about the file system anyways. They just had to deal with it to do whatever they really wanted to do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com